


Stark v Rogers

by reachingforthestardust



Category: Captain America (Movies), Daredevil (TV), Iron Man (Movies), Marvel Cinematic Universe
Genre: 90 per cent bullshit with just enough legal shit to seem legit, Avocados at Law, But it's there, Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Gen, Law, Minor Character Death, Not Captain America: Civil War (Movie) Compliant, Post-Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Stucky if you squint, i know nothing about the us law system apart from what i googled and instantly mangled for fic, law jargon, like seriously it's not even two words, mentioned - Freeform, tbh i know nothing about the aus law system either
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-03-17
Updated: 2016-03-17
Packaged: 2018-05-27 06:54:25
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,285
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/6274237
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/reachingforthestardust/pseuds/reachingforthestardust
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>“The plaintiff sues the defendant for damages in the tort of negligence, claiming that there existed a duty of care from the defendant to those in his squadron, the ‘Howling Commandos’, to protect them from harm. The plaintiff asserts the failure of Captain Rogers to stop his comrade, Sergeant James Buchanan Barnes, from falling, quite literally, into the hands of HYDRA, led to the deaths of the plaintiff’s parents, Howard and Maria Stark. This trauma, suffered at a young age, has caused Mr Stark to suffer pure mental harm since the incident.”<br/></p>
            </blockquote>





	Stark v Rogers

Stark v Rogers [2016] SCOTUS 90

Parties:  
Anthony Edward Stark (Pltf)  
Captain Steven Rogers (Def)

Negligence - failure to fulfil military duties - cause of death - pure mental harm - not liable

Cases cited:  
Stark v Barnes [2015] SCOTUS 125  
Miller v Johnson [2004] SCOTUS 34  
Jackson v Hill [2007] EDNY 356  
Nguyen v Carter [1999] NDTEX  
Chapman v Hearse [1961] 106 CLR 112

Counsel:  
E. Heyburn, M. Fuller, C. Wright (Pltf)  
F. Nelson and M. Murdock (Def)

McCovey CJ

Excerpts from the hearing:

“The plaintiff sues the defendant for damages in the tort of negligence, claiming that there existed a duty of care from the defendant to those in his squadron, the ‘Howling Commandos’, to protect them from harm. The plaintiff asserts the failure of Captain Rogers to stop his comrade, Sergeant James Buchanan Barnes, from falling, quite literally, into the hands of HYDRA, led to the deaths of the plaintiff’s parents, Howard and Maria Stark. This trauma, suffered at a young age, has caused Mr Stark to suffer pure mental harm since the incident.”

“‘And now, the counsel for the defendant, Mr Murdock,’  
‘Your Honour, to put it simply, the plaintiff’s claims are ridiculous. One might even say that they are far-fetched and fanciful.’”

“Your Honour, while Captain Rogers may have been acting for his country, his actions have undoubtedly led to the mental harm of my client. While the mental harm may have manifested somewhat unusually in regards to his frequent flings with women, it has also led to a dependency on alcohol that he continues to struggle with.”

“‘Your Honour, as you are aware, this court is reviewing the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces simply due to the pressure from the media. The CAAF found Captain Rogers not liable due to the conditions in which this supposed negligence occurred. You probably recall that these conditions were in the height of World War II. This is no excuse for war-crimes, but our client has committed no crimes of war - hence why he is being sued in tort. This case is simply slander against Captain Rogers, and a petty attempt at revenge for Mr Stark’s loss in the criminal courts against James Buchanan Barnes. He is trying to shift the blame from -’  
‘Objection! Personal accusations have no grounds in this court.’  
‘Accepted. Continue, Nelson, without the accusatory tone.’”

“‘How do you feel about these claims, Captain Rogers?’  
‘I feel…insulted by the insinuation that I willingly allowed my Bu- my best friend to fall into the hands of HYDRA. Mr Stark was not even born at this time, so he could not have understood how desperately I tried to reach him, how I lunged for his hand even as it fell away from the freezing metal. To try and say that I did not try to save him is ridiculous.’”

“My client does not deny that a duty of care existed between himself and Sergeant Barnes. However, there are no grounds for this case because there was no breach of duty. In war, one is responsible for one’s self. Barnes was offered the chance to refuse the mission. He did not, because of his personal character, and his willingness to follow his Captain, his friend, to the very end.”

“‘Your Honour, I would like to question the plaintiff’s assumption that the chain of events leading to Mr Stark’s unfortunate mental trauma were reasonably foreseeable. It was not foreseeable, on the defendant’s part, that his supposed ‘negligence’ would lead to his friend surviving the fall, being found by HYDRA, brainwashed and turned into a super assassin, that in turn, murdered Howard and Maria Stark, whereby Mr Stark suffered mental harm. It just seems a little…distant.’  
‘Your Honour? If I may speak?’  
‘You may.’  
‘While these chains of events may be ‘distant’, may I remind you that in the well-known Australian case of Chapman v Hearse, it was held that the exact chain of events did not need to be reasonably foreseeable, merely of the same general character. The opponent’s argument is therefore not valid.’  
‘Your Honour, may I speak?’  
‘Permission granted, Murdock.’  
‘That may be so, but as you yourself said, that is a case from a different jurisdiction and therefore any precedent set there need not be followed here. In addition - the fact remains, that brainwashing, before the facts of Sergeant Barnes’ experience came to light in Stark v Barnes, was not believed to exist, particularly not in the 1940’s. Therefore, in no way could Captain Rogers have foreseen that if his friend should survive the fall, he would be brainwashed. In fact, there was no way Captain Rogers could have foreseen that Sergeant Barnes would even have survived the fall. Mr Nelson, if you would take over?’  
‘With pleasure.’  
‘Objection! Change of lawyers!’  
‘Objection! Mr Murdock is blind and what I have to show the court cannot reasonably be presented by a blind man.’  
‘Continue, Mr Nelson. Ms Heyburn, please be seated.’  
‘As you can all see, unless you are blind like my partner, this is the rough location in which Sergeant Barnes fell from the train after being attacked by an enemy soldier. You can see why Captain Rogers could not have reasonably foreseen that his friend would have been able to survive the fall.’”

“‘Your Honour, should not have Captain Rogers taken the place of Sergeant Barnes? Or tried to protect him from the enemy assailant. It seems unreasonable that a Captain would leave a subordinate to suffer the brunt of an attack.’  
‘That indeed would be so, Ms Heyburn, if Captain Rogers had indeed left a subordinate to fend for himself. However, during the incident, Captain Rogers was himself fighting another assailant, as affirmed by Captain Rogers and Sergeant Barnes.’”

Extract from the Judgement - McCovey CJ

As Mr Murdock stated at the start of this hearing, the SCOTUS is simply reviewing the decision on this case, hence why I am the sole Justice to hear this case. The case was brought to the attention of SCOTUS due to the unusual level of public interest, and no shortage of politicians attempting to lay the blame for HYDRA infiltrating high level government agencies on one scapegoat. However, I feel that to find Captain Rogers liable for damages in regards to his supposed negligence would be contrary to the very ideals of the country in which we stand.

There was indeed a duty of care between Captain Rogers and Sergeant Barnes however I do not find a duty of care between Captain Rogers and Mr Stark, particularly as at the time of the incident, Mr Stark had yet to even be conceived. The actions of Captain Rogers when Sergeant Barnes fell from the train were not negligent in any way. From the accounts of the story, of which we have two, and Sergeant Barnes would have no cause to lie to this court if indeed Captain Rogers had been negligent in his care, there was no intentional or unintentional breach of duty.

Thus, I find Captain Rogers not liable for the supposed damages. It is indeed unfortunate that Mr Stark suffered mental harm due to the death of his parents, and while a reasonable person may too have suffered similar psychiatric effects, that alone does not put Captain Rogers at fault. The chain of events, as in Chamber v Hearse, was not at all foreseeable however it is distinguished in that even a chain of events in the same general character would not be reasonably foreseeable either. As Mr Murdock said, it would be ‘far-fetched and fanciful’.

The court hereby finds that the CAAF judgement was correct and true, and that there are no grounds for appeal.

**Author's Note:**

> Disclaimer: I know nothing about the US legal system, and not much about the Australian system. What you see is based primarily on the Australian legal system, and TV shows - mostly US in origin. I've been studying law for four weeks so I know lots of terms and exactly how to not use them. Which is exactly what I've done for the purpose of this fic. Also, Chapman v Hearse is the most fucking ironic case you will ever hear about. It's about a guy who gets hit by a car - driven by a person called Hearse. It's fantastic.


End file.
